Replies

After our Iraq experience, I'm more open to getting rid of the 5.56mm. It's great advantage, the ability to carry double the ammo, may have been very suited to jungle warfare with long foot patrols and sometimes a long period between resupplies. But in our current warfighting, we are mostly talking about mounted troops dismounting from vehicles for short sharp engagements. In this case, .243 or 7.62 may do better.

My first experience on a military rifle range back in '75 was with the M16. I qualified as Expert but I still remember my initial impression - great close range rifle but I'd want the M14 they made us carry during PT if I ever deployed to the desert. Twenty eight years hasn't changed my mind.

Unfortunately, logistics dictates a primary infantry weapon and, until someone can divine the next three theaters of operations, it has to be a compromise. Excellent observation about mechanized warfare coupled with the 7.62 weapon, BTW.

I agree, we need the 7.62 back. I always carried a scoped mounted M-14 on my track. Both of my gunners were excellent marksmen, and would provide very effective fire out to 500 meters. We avoided a lot of fire fights with the M-14, as it kept their head down, and they usually bugged out.

SEAL Team One, which has the primary middle eastern AOR, never did get rid of its .45s and M-14s.

But SEALs have the luxury of selection, from .22LR to .50 caliber for each four man element.